Search
Search results
Louise (64 KP) rated Relativity in Books
Jul 2, 2018
When I was asked to join the blog tour for Relativity I jumped at the chance. The blurb really intrigued me and also there is stunning praise on the front cover from three authors that I have read before: Graeme Simsion, S J Watson and Christos Tsiolkas. With such high praise from these authors I knew I had to read it.
Relativity follows Ethan Forsythe, twelve years old and a very clever young man who has a particular obsession with physics and astronomy. Ethan lives with his single mother Claire in Sydney, as he is getting older he is asking more and more questions about his fathers whereabouts which Claire is particularly hesitant about answering and very mysterious much to Ethans annoyance.
When Ethan gets taken ill, secrets start to unfold and the reasons for his current illness are revealed and how it's connected to his past and father.
I had never heard of Relativity until I was asked to do this Blog Tour, I like to go into books knowing as little as possible so I can form my own opinions and not waiting for twists and turns. Relativity took me by surprise,this is what you would classify as family drama/literary fiction and I devoured this book, needing to know what happened, why Ethan was ill? Why his father wasn't around?
I thought the writing style and prose of this book are beautifully written. I also liked the science parts even sometimes when I couldn't get my head around (I am not great at science). You don't have to be great at physics to follow this book but I think Antonia Hayes must have put a lot of research into the topics that were explored within.
The story is told from third person past tense narrative from the perspectives of Ethan, Claire and Mark. The characters are well-developed,complex and three dimensional. Ethan's character was written really well and believable for a twelve-year-old boy, he would say some profound things and had me laughing out loud.
Mum,want to know something crazy? Statistically, the probability that I exist is basically zero. Did you know you were born with two million eggs?
I could really empathise with Claire, being a parent myself you will do anything to protect your child and what you feel is best for them. Her anxiety that she was experiencing was palpable, what with introducing Mark back into Ethan's life but there were points where I felt she made some bad decisions and should have discussed it more with Ethan.
I liked reading from Marks perspective, especially towards the end when you get more of a back story, though there is parts sprinkled throughout the book about their relationship and extended family.
Relativity is beautiful, realistic and a well researched novel and definitely recommend picking it up. This is a great debut novel and I am excited to see what Hayes does next.
Relativity follows Ethan Forsythe, twelve years old and a very clever young man who has a particular obsession with physics and astronomy. Ethan lives with his single mother Claire in Sydney, as he is getting older he is asking more and more questions about his fathers whereabouts which Claire is particularly hesitant about answering and very mysterious much to Ethans annoyance.
When Ethan gets taken ill, secrets start to unfold and the reasons for his current illness are revealed and how it's connected to his past and father.
I had never heard of Relativity until I was asked to do this Blog Tour, I like to go into books knowing as little as possible so I can form my own opinions and not waiting for twists and turns. Relativity took me by surprise,this is what you would classify as family drama/literary fiction and I devoured this book, needing to know what happened, why Ethan was ill? Why his father wasn't around?
I thought the writing style and prose of this book are beautifully written. I also liked the science parts even sometimes when I couldn't get my head around (I am not great at science). You don't have to be great at physics to follow this book but I think Antonia Hayes must have put a lot of research into the topics that were explored within.
The story is told from third person past tense narrative from the perspectives of Ethan, Claire and Mark. The characters are well-developed,complex and three dimensional. Ethan's character was written really well and believable for a twelve-year-old boy, he would say some profound things and had me laughing out loud.
Mum,want to know something crazy? Statistically, the probability that I exist is basically zero. Did you know you were born with two million eggs?
I could really empathise with Claire, being a parent myself you will do anything to protect your child and what you feel is best for them. Her anxiety that she was experiencing was palpable, what with introducing Mark back into Ethan's life but there were points where I felt she made some bad decisions and should have discussed it more with Ethan.
I liked reading from Marks perspective, especially towards the end when you get more of a back story, though there is parts sprinkled throughout the book about their relationship and extended family.
Relativity is beautiful, realistic and a well researched novel and definitely recommend picking it up. This is a great debut novel and I am excited to see what Hayes does next.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) in Movies
Nov 11, 2018
Strong performances eleveates this "Art House" film.
With not a whole lot of interest filling out the screens at the multi-plexes at this time, I thought I'd head to the "Art House" to check out Melissa McCarthy in CAN YOU EVER FORGIVE ME? This film is garnering strong Oscar buzz for McCarthy's performance and I figured I'd see for myself.
And...darn it all...after a slow start, it does turn into an Oscar worthy performance, after all.
Telling the true tale of writer Lee Israel (based on her memoir), CYEFM tells the story of Israel's descent into criminal behavior to make ends meet by forging literary documents from the past and selling them as the real deal.
Starring as Israel, McCarthy drops all the artifice and bluster that she usually brings to her comedic characters to bring us a "non-people" person (Israel's own words) who is down on her luck. I was a bit skeptical of this performance in the first half of the film for I thought she had fallen victim to the "comedian trying their hands at a serious role" syndrome, being WAY too serious and glum, without a hint of humor. But, in the 2nd half of the film, McCarthy really finds this character and we begin to see a fully formed 3 dimensional person emerging on the screen - warts and all. And, when Israel/McCarthy gives the speech that will be shown at her Oscar nomination, she shows that she is fully deserving of any accolades that might come her way. It is a strong, humanistic portrayal of a person trying to figure it out - and learning that the shortcut probably isn't the best way to go.
Aiding her in her journey - and in this film - is Richard E. Grant as Jack Hock, another lost soul trying to make it in this world while having a good time doing it. Grant has the "showier" of the 2 roles and he revels in his moments. I would be fine with Grant being nominated as well - it is that strong of a performance and balances McCarthy's character wonderfully.
I did have a problem with the first 1/2 of this film, mainly for I disliked the 2 main characters being portrayed, they are certainly NOT 2 people to root for and I felt the film was only showing 1 dimensional stereotypes, but once McCarthy and Grant devise the forgery scheme, the film - and the performances - get very interesting, and multi-layered, indeed.
Keep in mind that this is an "Art House" film, by that I mean "talky". There isn't a whole lot of action and a TON of atmosphere and dialogue, not the type of film for everyone, but for those of you who like this sort of thing, you'll be rewarded by strong performances that lifts this film to a higher level.
Letter Grade: B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...darn it all...after a slow start, it does turn into an Oscar worthy performance, after all.
Telling the true tale of writer Lee Israel (based on her memoir), CYEFM tells the story of Israel's descent into criminal behavior to make ends meet by forging literary documents from the past and selling them as the real deal.
Starring as Israel, McCarthy drops all the artifice and bluster that she usually brings to her comedic characters to bring us a "non-people" person (Israel's own words) who is down on her luck. I was a bit skeptical of this performance in the first half of the film for I thought she had fallen victim to the "comedian trying their hands at a serious role" syndrome, being WAY too serious and glum, without a hint of humor. But, in the 2nd half of the film, McCarthy really finds this character and we begin to see a fully formed 3 dimensional person emerging on the screen - warts and all. And, when Israel/McCarthy gives the speech that will be shown at her Oscar nomination, she shows that she is fully deserving of any accolades that might come her way. It is a strong, humanistic portrayal of a person trying to figure it out - and learning that the shortcut probably isn't the best way to go.
Aiding her in her journey - and in this film - is Richard E. Grant as Jack Hock, another lost soul trying to make it in this world while having a good time doing it. Grant has the "showier" of the 2 roles and he revels in his moments. I would be fine with Grant being nominated as well - it is that strong of a performance and balances McCarthy's character wonderfully.
I did have a problem with the first 1/2 of this film, mainly for I disliked the 2 main characters being portrayed, they are certainly NOT 2 people to root for and I felt the film was only showing 1 dimensional stereotypes, but once McCarthy and Grant devise the forgery scheme, the film - and the performances - get very interesting, and multi-layered, indeed.
Keep in mind that this is an "Art House" film, by that I mean "talky". There isn't a whole lot of action and a TON of atmosphere and dialogue, not the type of film for everyone, but for those of you who like this sort of thing, you'll be rewarded by strong performances that lifts this film to a higher level.
Letter Grade: B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
MaryAnn (14 KP) rated The Secrets of Paper and Ink in Books
Nov 4, 2019
Lindsay Harrel presents a powerful story of healing, forgiveness, and finding the courage to write your own story. A year after the death of her abusive fiancé, domestic violence counselor Sophia Barrett finds returning to work too painful. She escapes to Cornwall, England—a place she’s learned to love through the words of her favorite author—and finds a place to stay with the requirement that she help out in the bookstore underneath the room she’s renting. Given her love of all things literary, it seems like the perfect place to find peace. Ginny Rose is an American living in Cornwall, sure that if she saves the bookstore she co-owns with her husband then she can save her marriage as well. Fighting to keep the first place she feels like she belongs, she brainstorms with her brother-in-law, William, and Sophia to try to keep the charming bookstore afloat. More than 150 years before, governess Emily Fairfax knew two things for certain: she wanted to be a published author, and she was in love with her childhood best friend. But he was a wealthy heir and well out of her league. Sophia discovers Emily’s journals, and she and William embark on a mission to find out more about this mysterious and determined woman, all the while getting closer to each other as they get closer to the truth. The lives of the three women intertwine as each learns the power she has over the story of her life.
My Thoughts: This was a very compelling read for me. This is not just a story about one woman finding her healing from an abusive relationship but of three women finding out who they are and finding their true love.
I love the way the author combines the three lives of these women to form a story that the reader will be unable to put down.
There is a quote in the book that really stuck out to me "All we have in life are the choices we make. We must make choices we can live with - and die with if it comes to that". This is so true, life is made up of our choices, some may be good and others may not be so good. In the end, we have to live with our choices and the consequences of them. This is what Emily's father told her once and it was good advice. Emily is my favorite of the three women. She had a desire and she saw it through, she never gave up on her writing. She held to her convictions and had a love for others. She never let defeat get her down or to stop her from doing what she wanted to do.
I really enjoyed this novel, and I believe that other readers will enjoy it as much as I did; I think each reader will take something away with them from this novel. I hope to read more from this author.
My Thoughts: This was a very compelling read for me. This is not just a story about one woman finding her healing from an abusive relationship but of three women finding out who they are and finding their true love.
I love the way the author combines the three lives of these women to form a story that the reader will be unable to put down.
There is a quote in the book that really stuck out to me "All we have in life are the choices we make. We must make choices we can live with - and die with if it comes to that". This is so true, life is made up of our choices, some may be good and others may not be so good. In the end, we have to live with our choices and the consequences of them. This is what Emily's father told her once and it was good advice. Emily is my favorite of the three women. She had a desire and she saw it through, she never gave up on her writing. She held to her convictions and had a love for others. She never let defeat get her down or to stop her from doing what she wanted to do.
I really enjoyed this novel, and I believe that other readers will enjoy it as much as I did; I think each reader will take something away with them from this novel. I hope to read more from this author.
Madhyamam Weekly
News and Magazines & Newspapers
App
Madhyamam is India's first international newspaper-with Gulf Madhyamam, the largest circulated...
Robert Burns in Edinburgh: An Illustrated Guide to Burns' Time in Edinburgh
Jerry Brannigan, John McShane and Alexander David
Book
A reader-friendly, fully illustrated colour guide to Robert Burns' time in Edinburgh, with fresh...
The Penguin Complete Sherlock Holmes
10.0
Rate It
Book
The Penguin Complete Sherlock Holmes by Arthur Conan Doyle are the complete adventures of the...
The Island:Brave Heart
Games and Sports
App
The Island,Man in the Wild,Amazing Adventure.... This is a game about exploring and surviving on a...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Les Misérables (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Words cannot express how amazing this movie is. For those of you who have shouldered through the modern-day musical revival; suffering through the questionable singing talents of many stars as “Phantom of the Opera,” “Chicago,” “Moulin Rouge,” “Sweeny Todd,” and that abysmal rendition of “Nine” – I can assure you, that “Les Mis” will change that perception. For once, the casting crew took the time to select a cast capable of the repertoire’s vocal demands (and Les Mis is very vocally demanding – as most operatic pieces are). It’s apparent that each singer was heavily vocally coached and trained, some faring more so than others. While this is no replacement for raw talent, I can assure you that the cast was downright fantastic.
For years I studied and sang opera. I know music and I’ve sung my fair share of Les Mis pieces in my past. I adore Victor Hugo and “Les Misérables” is by far one of my favorite literary works. When I began to watch this movie, I was keyed up to be critical on the vocal spectrum, the literary aspect, and the representation of one of my favorite Broadway/London pieces. To be frank, I wasn’t disappointed at all.
For those unfamiliar with Hugo’s work or what to expect with Les Mis, let me give you a brief synopsis on its plot and the history of the French revolution in which this takes place. France has just endured her infamous Revolution (the one with the guillotine, Marie-Antoinette, and the Sans Culottes movement) and her people are still suffering. There is no money for food, the country is in the midst of a depression, and the Napoleonic regime is yet to come to fruition. Thus, you find Fantine (Hathaway), a poor but determined (and beautiful) woman trying desperately to make enough money to support her daughter, Cosette, who resides with friends in another city. The book reveals that Madame Thénardier (Bonham-Carter) and her husband, Thénardier (Baron-Cohen) were supposed to be taking the money that Fantine had given to them to provide for her daughter, Cosette. Instead, however, Cosette is forced to live in absolute poverty while Thénardier’s daughter, Eponine, lives the life of opulence. Meanwhile, Jean Valjean (Jackman), an ex-convict, is trying desperately to find legitimate work after his stint in prison for stealing a loaf of bread to provide for his starving family. The infamous policeman, Javert (Crowe), feels Valjean will re-offend and makes it his mission to pursue Valjean until the end.
Finding the world a terrible place as an ex-convict, Valjean seeks to steal from a church her silver, believing he has no other way to survive. It is the love of a good priest, however, who gives Valjean the silver he seeks under the pledge he will become a servant of God and provide for others the same good he has provided for him. Thus, years later, we find Valjean a reformed man (who has skipped on his parole and assumed a new name), running a factory in which Fantine works. And so, when Fantine is fired from her job and takes to a life of prostitution in order to provide for her daughter, it is Valjean who feels the burden of her demise and takes it upon himself to save Cosette and raise her as his own.
Of course, this entire time, Javert is pursuing Valjean and a new revolution is starting to take place amongst Paris’ people. Years later we find Cosette grown to womanhood (now played by Seyfried), and falling in love with one of the revolution’s key players, a youth by the name of Marius (Redmayne). The Thénardiers are back again and we find their once-grand lifestyle has resorted to a life of gutter-crime and Éponine (now played by Barks), is desperately in love with Marius as well (although her love is unrequited). For those unfamiliar with how the story plays out, I will leave it at that.
I will caution those who have never seen this play to prepare for a long show. It is very dramatic and very intense, but visually breath-taking and emotionally moving in so many ways. Vocally, there are times when the legato is lacking and some transitions seemed forced (Crowe struggled many times with allowing his natural vibrato to come through instead of pushing a sustained note; Seyfried’s vibrato is very trill-like and sometimes distracts from the pure quality of her spinto-soprano range). However, I must say that I was blown away by Hathway’s performance (she brought me to tears with “I Dreamed a Dream” due to her emotional rendition) and her ability to truly escape into her character. Similarly, Tviet (he played Enjolras) was stunning with his vocal command and Redmayne was equally as impressive. Jackman will amaze you with his rich tenor and, surprisingly, I found Crowe to have a fantastic baritone when he didn’t force his work. Baron-Cohen and Bonham-Carter provided a much needed comical respite throughout the film (and both sing beautifully as well, although this movie didn’t focus on their vocal command as much). Barks did a lovely job for most of her work; although I found her rendition of “On My Own” a bit forced (she is a true mezzo but seemed to push her high notes, although this may have been where her voice shifted into her head voice which is no fault of her own).
Overall, if you are an avid musical lover and have been waiting for a proper rendition of this production, this movie will astound you. Visually, the movie is breath-taking and the acting is absolutely fantastic. I’m still haunted by the revolutionary song, to be honest. If you’ve been waiting for a musical worthy of the big screen, this one is it. Look for it to sweep the Oscars this year.
This movie deserves an A all around.
For years I studied and sang opera. I know music and I’ve sung my fair share of Les Mis pieces in my past. I adore Victor Hugo and “Les Misérables” is by far one of my favorite literary works. When I began to watch this movie, I was keyed up to be critical on the vocal spectrum, the literary aspect, and the representation of one of my favorite Broadway/London pieces. To be frank, I wasn’t disappointed at all.
For those unfamiliar with Hugo’s work or what to expect with Les Mis, let me give you a brief synopsis on its plot and the history of the French revolution in which this takes place. France has just endured her infamous Revolution (the one with the guillotine, Marie-Antoinette, and the Sans Culottes movement) and her people are still suffering. There is no money for food, the country is in the midst of a depression, and the Napoleonic regime is yet to come to fruition. Thus, you find Fantine (Hathaway), a poor but determined (and beautiful) woman trying desperately to make enough money to support her daughter, Cosette, who resides with friends in another city. The book reveals that Madame Thénardier (Bonham-Carter) and her husband, Thénardier (Baron-Cohen) were supposed to be taking the money that Fantine had given to them to provide for her daughter, Cosette. Instead, however, Cosette is forced to live in absolute poverty while Thénardier’s daughter, Eponine, lives the life of opulence. Meanwhile, Jean Valjean (Jackman), an ex-convict, is trying desperately to find legitimate work after his stint in prison for stealing a loaf of bread to provide for his starving family. The infamous policeman, Javert (Crowe), feels Valjean will re-offend and makes it his mission to pursue Valjean until the end.
Finding the world a terrible place as an ex-convict, Valjean seeks to steal from a church her silver, believing he has no other way to survive. It is the love of a good priest, however, who gives Valjean the silver he seeks under the pledge he will become a servant of God and provide for others the same good he has provided for him. Thus, years later, we find Valjean a reformed man (who has skipped on his parole and assumed a new name), running a factory in which Fantine works. And so, when Fantine is fired from her job and takes to a life of prostitution in order to provide for her daughter, it is Valjean who feels the burden of her demise and takes it upon himself to save Cosette and raise her as his own.
Of course, this entire time, Javert is pursuing Valjean and a new revolution is starting to take place amongst Paris’ people. Years later we find Cosette grown to womanhood (now played by Seyfried), and falling in love with one of the revolution’s key players, a youth by the name of Marius (Redmayne). The Thénardiers are back again and we find their once-grand lifestyle has resorted to a life of gutter-crime and Éponine (now played by Barks), is desperately in love with Marius as well (although her love is unrequited). For those unfamiliar with how the story plays out, I will leave it at that.
I will caution those who have never seen this play to prepare for a long show. It is very dramatic and very intense, but visually breath-taking and emotionally moving in so many ways. Vocally, there are times when the legato is lacking and some transitions seemed forced (Crowe struggled many times with allowing his natural vibrato to come through instead of pushing a sustained note; Seyfried’s vibrato is very trill-like and sometimes distracts from the pure quality of her spinto-soprano range). However, I must say that I was blown away by Hathway’s performance (she brought me to tears with “I Dreamed a Dream” due to her emotional rendition) and her ability to truly escape into her character. Similarly, Tviet (he played Enjolras) was stunning with his vocal command and Redmayne was equally as impressive. Jackman will amaze you with his rich tenor and, surprisingly, I found Crowe to have a fantastic baritone when he didn’t force his work. Baron-Cohen and Bonham-Carter provided a much needed comical respite throughout the film (and both sing beautifully as well, although this movie didn’t focus on their vocal command as much). Barks did a lovely job for most of her work; although I found her rendition of “On My Own” a bit forced (she is a true mezzo but seemed to push her high notes, although this may have been where her voice shifted into her head voice which is no fault of her own).
Overall, if you are an avid musical lover and have been waiting for a proper rendition of this production, this movie will astound you. Visually, the movie is breath-taking and the acting is absolutely fantastic. I’m still haunted by the revolutionary song, to be honest. If you’ve been waiting for a musical worthy of the big screen, this one is it. Look for it to sweep the Oscars this year.
This movie deserves an A all around.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Into the Water in Books
Jan 10, 2018
No big surprises (1 more)
Confusing POV
Not a bad book, but not a great one either
When the police show up at her door, Jules Abbott knows it isn't good news, but she isn't expecting this. Her older sister, Nel is dead--drowned in the lake known as the Drowning Pool back in their hometown. Jules has always vowed to never return to that place, but she finds herself back: in her childhood home, where Nel lived with her fifteen-year-old daughter, Lena. The assumption is that Nel committed suicide in the Pool, but Jules knows that isn't possible. Even though she hasn't seen her sister for years, she is convinced her water-loving sibling would never willingly die in the water. Meanwhile, Jules discovers that Nel was looking into other local residents who died at the Drowning Pool over the years for a book she was writing. What exactly happened to them--and Nel?
It's never easy to follow up a blockbuster like The Girl on the Train - I cannot even imagine the pressure. I didn't adore that book, but I do remember that I basically read it in one sitting. That wasn't the case with INTO THE WATER, though in its defense, I read it during an extremely busy period with work, where I basically collapsed in bed each night to read a few chapters.
This is not a bad book, but it wasn't a great one, either. It's not one that will stay with me. For one thing, much of its plot is predicated around one of my most reviled literary pet peeves: ridiculous miscommunication. You know, that whole thing where if the characters would just talk to each other, as normal folks do, for about 5 minutes, we wouldn't have to go through any of this? Yes. That. So that irritated me to no end.
There are also a lot of points of view in this book. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it certainly took a while to keep everyone straight. I was glad I was reading this as an actual book, so I could flip back and see whom I'd been reading about earlier. Slogging through those early portions of many characters slowed things down for me and made it harder to get into the story.
As I said, it's not a bad book. I enjoyed reading it. The storyline is fairly interesting, overall, and it held my attention, even when I was pretty tired. I had a pretty decent suspicion of "whodunnit" fairly early on and turned out to be correct, but about halfway through, I was still second-guessing myself and pretty captivated. Nel, Jules, and Lena are intriguing characters, if not fairly frustrating in their lack of ability to talk to one another.
Still, overall, I was left feeling a little deflated by this one. There was no big "gasp" moment for me (perhaps because I had a decent inkling what had happened early on?) like GIRL. It was just a fairly good thriller that kept me entertained for a few days.
It's never easy to follow up a blockbuster like The Girl on the Train - I cannot even imagine the pressure. I didn't adore that book, but I do remember that I basically read it in one sitting. That wasn't the case with INTO THE WATER, though in its defense, I read it during an extremely busy period with work, where I basically collapsed in bed each night to read a few chapters.
This is not a bad book, but it wasn't a great one, either. It's not one that will stay with me. For one thing, much of its plot is predicated around one of my most reviled literary pet peeves: ridiculous miscommunication. You know, that whole thing where if the characters would just talk to each other, as normal folks do, for about 5 minutes, we wouldn't have to go through any of this? Yes. That. So that irritated me to no end.
There are also a lot of points of view in this book. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it certainly took a while to keep everyone straight. I was glad I was reading this as an actual book, so I could flip back and see whom I'd been reading about earlier. Slogging through those early portions of many characters slowed things down for me and made it harder to get into the story.
As I said, it's not a bad book. I enjoyed reading it. The storyline is fairly interesting, overall, and it held my attention, even when I was pretty tired. I had a pretty decent suspicion of "whodunnit" fairly early on and turned out to be correct, but about halfway through, I was still second-guessing myself and pretty captivated. Nel, Jules, and Lena are intriguing characters, if not fairly frustrating in their lack of ability to talk to one another.
Still, overall, I was left feeling a little deflated by this one. There was no big "gasp" moment for me (perhaps because I had a decent inkling what had happened early on?) like GIRL. It was just a fairly good thriller that kept me entertained for a few days.